Kerala High Court Closes Film Producer's Contempt Plea After Police Inquiry Clears DySP Of Misbehaviour Allegations

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 8) closed the contempt plea initiated by film producer Sheela Kurian over non-compliance of direction to consider her representation seeking action against Deputy Superintendent of Police Madhu Babu for his alleged misbehaviour towards her. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 366]

In December last year, a co-ordinate Bench had directed the Inspector General of Police, Ernakulam range to consider the representation made by the film producer. Last month, the Court had directed the State to verify compliance of the said direction.

Today, when the matter came up for consideration, Justice Jobin Sebastian orally enquired: "Have you considered the representation filed by the alleged victim?"

The Court was told that a report was submitted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ernakulam range wherein it was stated that there is no post of Inspector General of Police in the afore range. 

It was further stated that an enquiry was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam (Rural) to look into all the allegations raised by the petitioner but the same did not reveal any material for registration of any criminal case or initiation of departmental proceedings against DySP Babu. 

The Court was also told today that the inquiry revealed that an audio recording of the interaction that took place between the petitioner and the DySP is recorded in the CCTV footage.

Hearing the submission and considering the report, the Court observed:

"He...had considered the representation submitted by the victim and as per his direction, an enquiry has been conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police....and...all the allegations raised by the petitioner were examined through an independent inquiry. The enquiry conducted did not reveal any material warranting registration of a criminal case or the initiation of departmental action against Sri. Madhu Babu, DySP Alappuzha. Further, it is stated that the conclusions arrived at in the inquiry are based upon the statement of witnesses, verification of records, examination of the audio recording and other objective materials collected during the enquiry. Hence, it is apparent that the direction of this Court to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner/victim stands substantially complied with. If at all, the petitioner is having any subsisting grievance, she is at liberty to resort to other remedies as per the ordinary criminal law. Hence this contempt court stands closed."

Justice Sebastian also orally remarked that the proper course of the proceedings was to approach the jurisdictional magistrate if a complaint is not registered by the police, instead of approaching the High Court:

"This is not the proper procedure. Even though she was aggrieved by non-registration of an FIR even after complaining about a commissioner of police, the remedy was to approach the jurisdictional magistrate. My predecessor had passed an order in favour of you.…You have to resort to remedies under the ordinary criminal law. This is not the proper way. Anyhow, in order to honour the earlier order, I have called for a report in the contempt petition."

The Court, thus, closed the contempt plea reserving liberty to the petitioner to explore other statutory remedies available.

Case No: Con.Case(C) No.1363/2026

Case Title: Thilakeshwari @ Sheela Kurian v. G. Sparjan Kumar IPS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 366

Counsel for the petitioner: Manu Ramachandran, M. Kiranlal, R. Rajesh (Varkala), Sameer M. Nair, Sailakshmi Menon, Binitha Maria Thomas, Kezil Thottukadavil Cherian & Akza Susan Bency